Reblogged from The Christian Watershed:

I'm reposting this as it's something I've been thinking about lately. Namely, why is it that atheists are so set on adopting Christian morality within the secular name? Such an action is quite impossible; this is something Nietzsche saw (simply read Book V of "The Gay Science"). Perhaps others see it, but are simply too afraid to admit it.

Recently President Obama has floated around the idea of increasing taxes on the top income earners in America, of those who have a seven-figure income. All of this would be done in order to somehow save some government programs. The Republicans, as per usual, are against the tax hike because they arguing that by raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans – the job creators – we would see a stagnation in our economy because the rich would simply refuse to create more jobs.

The thinking is quite simple:

Ed (or Edward Mortimer IV in our example) owns a multi-million dollar corporation and brings in a seven-figure income. He currently pays around 35%, but because of his income he has found a great accountant and can get away with only paying around 20% of his income. If we close the tax loopholes then he’s stuck to paying 35%. Then we raise the tax up to 38%. Let us assume that before taxes he brings home exactly one million dollars. Before the tax increase (without loopholes) he would bring home $650,000, which isn’t bad at all considering the median income for Americans. After the tax-hike, he would bring home $620,000, losing $30,000 in a year (which is more than 1 in 4 Americans make in a year).  We’re told that Ed would cut jobs or stop hiring people over a loss of $30,000 a year.

In other words, the Republicans are saying that our richest elite are actually holding us hostage. They’re saying, “You’ll let me bring home x amount of dollars or else I’ll cut jobs or produce my goods overseas!” All over $30,000, which is less than a luxury vehicle.

Now, certainly there comes a point where a tax percentage is oppressive – I would argue that regardless of circumstances, taking half of what a person has legitimately earned just seems wrong; that the person works for a living and doesn’t get to bring home even half of his income just doesn’t seem right. At the same time, however, increasing the tax rate a little bit shouldn’t discourage business growth, it should encourage it; if a smart businessman loses $30,000 in income due to taxation, he will work hard enough to increase his business in order to make up for that loss. In other words, smart businessmen and women will create jobs during a personal income tax hike rather than cut jobs, all so they can make up the lost revenue.

Of course, others will unwisely cut jobs (which in the end hurts the economy because it ruins the spending power of individual Americans; the goal in business should be to pay your employees as much as you possibly can while still making a profit, all so the spending power of your employees increases, which in turn will increase your business). Thus, we bow down to those who say they would cut jobs and refuse to increase their taxes, yet our government continues to go into debt.

But of course, on the Democratic side of the equation we have an absolute refusal to cut spending on certain projects. While the projects might be nice, even with a tax hike we can’t afford all of these projects. Thus, we have to cut spending, lest we create a scenario where more and more people have to go on government assistance. The goal of the government shouldn’t be to increase food stamps, welfare, and so on; it should be to cut the spending in these areas because they aren’t needed. In other words, it’s okay to cut the programs in one area so long as there is an alternative set up to help people become self-sustaining without those programs.

Yet, because of greed, no change is found. Because of the greed of the Democrats and their lust for power, they simply want to increase welfare programs without drastically reforming welfare, all because it could potentially cost them votes; the Democrats just want to spend, spend, and spend some more. Because of the greed of the Republicans and their lust for power, they simply want to cut much needed government programs without finding a way to reform them so the poor don’t suffer, all the while cutting the taxes for the rich. All the while, the poor and middle class suffer.

In the end, what we have is a government that is run by professional politicians who seek to stay in power; the government is not run by those who are interested in the public good. We can play the partisan role by blaming primarily the Republicans or primarily the Democrats, but the reality is that both parties are horrible and both parties share an equal part of the blame. Both parties have career (or those who desire to be career) politicians. Both parties have lost an interest in doing what is right and just and instead are only interested in what’s good for the Party and what’s good for themselves. We have a government that’s merely interested in what’s good for the individual or collection of individuals, but couldn’t care less about the Good.

In fact, the great philosopher – the last Roman philosopher – Boethius once wrote, ‎

“By his [Plato's] mouth likewise thou [Philosophy] didst point out this imperative reason why philosophers should enter public life, to wit, lest, if the reins of government be left to unprincipled and profligate citizens, trouble and destruction should come upon the good.” (Consolation of Philosophy Book IV)

While Plato may have been too much of an elitist for today’s sensibilities, Boethius does well to bring up Plato’s point about the importance of having thinkers run the government. A true thinker isn’t one who finds cheap ways to win an election and stay in power, rather it is someone who is so overly concerned with what is good and right that he will pursue the good even if it costs him a position of authority. The ideal “politician” would be one who runs on certain principles, even if those principles are unpopular; one who sticks to those principles, even if his own party turns against him; one who enacts those principles, even if he costs him his position. Of course, all of this is only true if his principles align with what is good, and not just good for the Party or for him, but what is Good.

Such a person would look at the modern political landscape and our debate over the economy. He would ask why we can’t reform government programs to encourage people to become self-sustaining, thus helping the poor while also cutting spending. He would ask why we can’t raise the taxes slightly on the richest of our population and punish them if they threaten to hold us hostage (by issuing a tax penalty or some way to compensate employees who are laid off due to one person’s greed). Ultimately, he would ask why we value and survive off a vice – greed – rather than pursuing what is virtuous, such as prudence. He would ask why we continue to elect people who are greedy and lustful for power, rather than electing those who are only interested in the public good and not what they can personally gain.

Sadly, such a politician would never get elected in our nation. Thus, I am convinced that we will continue to bicker and fight over minor issues while the major issues go unsolved. The gap between rich and poor will continue to grow. The divide between Republicans and Democrats will widen. The solutions will be there, but no one will have the courage to enact those solutions.

Yet, in many ways we’ve placed ourselves in this situation. While we can complain about how our government acts and how there are no people of courage in the government, we created an environment that allowed for such a government and continue to perpetuate such an environment. In fact, the more we fester this unhealthy (im)moral environment, the worse our government will become. That is what we will explore in Part 2 of this post.

Just as a banana is an atheist's greatest fear, Kirk Cameron is the Tribulation's greatest fear. Here we see Cameron stare the Tribulation into submission.

(A note: This is all meant in good fun, with a bit of serious reflection at the end. Also, this isn’t directed at those who were duped, but at Harold Camping who did the duping and made a fortune off of it.)

As we all know, the rapture occurred yesterday, May 21, 2011. After all, what else could explain the absolute silence of Harold Camping in the absence of earthquakes at 6pm in every timezone? Perhaps they were spiritual earthquakes. Who knows.

But since you, like me, are left behind™, perhaps we should consider what to do now. If you see Kirk Cameron or Brad Johnson, keep in mind that it’s all in the script. What should we expect now? After all, now that the rapture has occurred, there’s going to be massive amounts of judgment hurled our way until it all goes *BOOM* on October 21, 2011, or thereabouts.

Thankfully, before Camping slipped the surly bonds of earth to go up to the Spirit in the sky, he imparted some of his knowledge to moi. Having studied Revelation and coming to an absolutely perfect knowledge of what the writer intended – since I’m now in tight with God and all – here’s what we can expect, or at least here’s a rough timeline:

• June 1 - The One World Government will be established. To show how evil such a government is, Quebec will break away from Canada prior to the establishment of this government and then become the lead nation of the One World Government; there’s nothing more evil than French-Canadians.
• June 1 – July 1 - There will be relative peace during this time. Wars will cease, armies will give up their weapons, and Philadelphia will lose all their sports teams in order to secure a greater peace.
• July 4 - There will be a famine of epic proportions when the Johnson family runs out of hot dogs for their 4th of July cookout. The Johnson’s will attempt to buy more from their neighbor Mr. Blackwell, but he will respond, “$15 for a bun and $20 for one hotdog!” (Revelation 6:5-6)
• July 9 - Lady Gaga releases a new album featuring Katy Perry. The vapid nature of such music is enough that multiple people’s brains simply stop functioning after hearing the song. (Revelation 6:7-8)
• July 10 - The two witnesses – Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron – will begin to preach that we are in the Tribulation. The message will begin, “A lot of you doubt we’re in the Tribulation. But let me show you the ultimate defeater to your argument, your worst enemy. Here we have the banana…” (Revelation 11:3-6)
• August 10 – A third of the earth will be destroyed, the oceans will dry up, and a giant mountain will be thrown to earth when it’s revealed that the OWN Network is moving up Rosie O’Donell’s show to the late summer. This is why the angel cries out, “Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth.” (Revelation 8:7-13)
• August 23 - the Antichrist (note: Camping wasn’t clear on who the Antichrist is, merely that he is possibly a New York Yankee, and of course this makes perfect sense) will be put down and appear to be dead, but to the chagrin of all who love the good and holy will raise back again (further proof that the Antichrist is possibly a New York Yankee). (Revelation 13:3)
• September 3 - the Abomination of Desolation occurs when the Ohio St administration accidentally allows Jim Tressell to coach his team to victory against mighty Akron. Tressell will later say that he was unaware that he was, in fact, suspended from coaching, but later emails will show that he knew he was suspended all along. (Daniel 9:27)
• September 17 - The False Prophet arrives in order to speak of how great the Antichrist (New York Yankee(s)) is/are. Again, Camping isn’t clear, but he suspects that it will be an ESPN analyst as they tend to show love to the Yankees through thick and thin. (Revelation 13:11-15)
• September 30 - Shortly before the start of the NBA 2011-2012 season, the Heat will increase their roster to include Blake Griffin, Kevin Durant, and Kobe Bryant. Lebron James will be quoted as saying, “We’re not going to win 2, 3, 4, or 7 championships. We’re going to win, like, infinity.” (Revelation 16:8)
• October 8 - The final Battle of Armageddon is waged when God leads the forces of good (University of Oklahoma Sooners) against the forces of evil (University of Texas Longhorns). This will fulfill a double prophecy based on a minority Septuagint manuscript of Psalm 75:10, which reads, “And I shall saw off the horns of the wicked, but the schooner of the righteous shall be lifted up.” It will also fulfill the prophecy of Armageddon.
• October 21 - The Cleveland Indians will jump to 2-0 over the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series. However, after Cleveland enjoys their second straight shut out, God will consume the earth in fire and end the world as we know it, thus preventing Cleveland from bringing home a championship that they were almost a shoe-in to win. This event will go down in Cleveland as, “The Burn.”

What you need to be aware of is that there are actually more events that will occur; these are simply the biggest signs to look for. Chumbawamba will release a single, Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman will co-host their own show titled, “I’m Sorry, We Were Wrong,” Congress will pass a law (nothing specific, just that a law will actually pass), and George Lucas will opt not to ruin the “Star Wars” movie series anymore than he already has. Gary Busey will actually begin to make a lot of sense. We ought to be prepared for these things to happen, as it is all on the horizon.

___________________________________________

On a more serious note, just as many predicted yesterday there was no rapture, no judgment, nothing; the world simply kept rotating. This isn’t because God is a liar or because God doesn’t exist, but because sometimes humans have a tendency to get ahead of themselves. This is especially true when it comes to the “End Times.”

While there is nothing wrong in studying our ultimate end or in hoping for the resurrection – in fact, we are called to do this as the resurrection gives purpose to all that we do – we must never forget that we still live in the here-and-now. For every debate we have over whether or not Jesus will come before the Tribulation or after the Tribulation (or if there is a Tribulation), how many children go hungry, how many men cheat on their wives, and how many souls are lost forever? While some debates are worth having, how or when the end will happen just isn’t one of them.

We shouldn’t obsess over the end, but simply accept that it will one day occur and we should prepare for that day. We should prepare by helping those around us now and working to bring them a taste of God’s coming kingdom while we still live in the now. Perhaps we should reflect on these words:

“The time of the kingdom is secret…Thus, we should live everyday as if we will be judged” – Bede

“He indeed said that he will come, but he did not define when, so all generations and ages thirst for him” – Ephrem of Syrian

• iWeb didn’t allow any filtering of the comments and we had no control over what got through and what didn’t
• No web traffic! Being removed from the WordPress site alienated us from most of our traffic, so we chose to come back
• iWeb was difficult to post with, which led to infrequency in posting

Of course, in order to move back to WordPress we had to sacrifice some control over the look of the site, something we do hope to fix in the future when we’re more established (or if some web designer wants to do it for us now in his spare time!).

We hope you enjoy the new look and we look forward to growing from here.

- The Christian Watershed team

To handle this issue, many theodicies have been put forth that attempt to explain that gratuitous evil simply doesn’t exist, that all evil has a greater-good attached to it (even if we don’t see it). They take the solution from the logical problem of evil and apply it to the evidential problem of evil. But in doing so, they create quite a few problems and end up begging the question.

Enter Bruce Little who has attempted to explain that gratuitous evil can and does exist, but that none of this impacts God. While he takes a path that is considered dangerous by some Christian philosophers, ultimately he makes some good points, but often to the detriment of “greater-good” theodicies. While I would agree that we shouldn’t have a universal application of greater-good, in some specific instances (such as the cross) it’s perfectly legitimate. However, just because some instances allow for a greater-good theodicy doesn’t mean all specific instances do.

Beyond the intellectual problems of evil (as listed above) we have the existential problem of evil. We all experience evil and at such a time our intellectual arguments generally fail us. This isn’t because the intellectual arguments are wrong, but that evil is so blatantly irrational – since it is the absence of God it must be irrational – that it’s different to explain rationally. Anyone who has been through an evil, especially a seemingly gratuitous kind of evil, will recognize that in the moment there is no explanation, no comfort, no reason, nothing positive. Why is this?

Thus, we are left with two major problems among competing theodicies; (1) the evidential argument seemingly comes apart because it must allow for greater-good theodicies in some instances, but gratuitous evil in others, so how can we reconcile this with an all-good, all-powerful God? The second problem (2) is existential; when all of our reasons fail for explaining why God allows evil and evil strikes at us, what then? Why does God allow specific evils that impact us and what should our response be?

To these two problems I believe I have finally structured a workable theodicy, one that deals with both the intellectual problem of evil and the existential problem of evil (both are tied together and reliant upon each other, but applied differently in different situations). It will show that human free will and submission to God are key explanations. What is more is these theodicy defenses only make sense within the tradition of Christianity.

It will take some time to put together an essay explaining this new (yet old) argument, but I think it will be well worth it. I plan on writing it soon, because it will tie into another essay I’ve been working on. Suffice it to say, this argument is built upon ancient teachings from the Christian writers, philosophical application, and Scripture; the weakness in all theodicies up to this point (at least as developed in the West) is they have ignored one of those three requirements, leading to an incomplete theodicy. My goal is to link all three together and show that some of the theodicies that combat against each other actually work better in unison.

Sadly, it is quite easy to get wrapped up in such rhetoric. It used to be that one could have a heated discussion or a strongly worded discussion on difficult issues, but still walk away friends and understanding each other’s opinions. Anymore, however, we often dissolve into ad hominem attacks before the fight even gets heated. “Well you only believe that because you’re uneducated!” “You want to justify your sin, so of course you’ll say that!” We attack the person and ascribe nefarious motives to him before hearing his opinion. Sadly, we do this because we often times don’t want to hear the other side’s opinion. We’ve already formed our judgment and believe they have nothing to offer us, that we could never be wrong and they could never be right. Such a recalcitrant attitude is the epitome of close-mindedness.

In an effort to reverse such incivility in our world, the Christian Watershed is extending an open invitation for anyone who disagrees with us to write articles in response to us and/or to voice their opinions. In all fairness, while we might write an article in response, we want to open our website to fair-minded and open discourse. We will only publish quality articles/blogs, but so long as the piece is written in a civil manner and written as an attempt to explain one’s position (even if that position is, “You are wrong”), we’ll post it. For some we’ll write a response and for others we’ll simply let them stand.

In either case, we want to show that while disagreement is inevitable, incivility is not. Incivility is bred out of ignorance, arrogance, and a general disdain towards deeper thought. While some things require an impassioned response, those things are few and far between.

To those who do agree with us, you’re also welcome to post articles. But we’re extending this invitation to those who do disagree with us. Again, while we’re respond, we will respond in a civil tone – to be open-minded doesn’t mean to be free from disagreement, it means to look at where your opponent is coming from and then to counter the argument, not the person.

To send us an article simply contact us with the subject line “ARTICLE.” Make sure to give us your first name (or pseudonym), a link to your website (if you wish), and any other background information you want us to publish (e.g. any books/articles you’ve published, where/if you have your degree, what kind of work/ministry you’re in, etc). Give us time to put your article up as we may be busy doing other things. In most cases you’ll receive a response within 72 hours confirming whether or not we got the article.

So we leave ourselves open. We hope to hear from you soon.

If nothing changes, well then, I guess this post is useless.

I think my friend over at Montrose has written an exceptional view on this issue. I think he accurately summarizes the issue and how Christians should deal with this issue (and a whole host of others).

“Homosexuality is a Sin” and “Christ Can Set You Free” is what his placards said; “God Hates Homosexuals” is what they heard. He came to Montrose to muzzle the Ox and when he found that he was too weak, he told the Ox to see him in court. I am a Christian, I worship Jesus, and I have been in Montrose for over a year now and I think Montrose’s stigma is just a bad rep. Montrose is known for being “the gay community of Houston”. In fact, a man once … Read More

via Montrose Blvd.